CLAYKING MINERALS LLP,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KETABEN JANAKBHAI PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

price of Rs. 8,15,000/-. The purchase deed was registered on 19.12.2006. The said plot was sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- along-with two other persons. Stamp duty of Rs.24,44,500/- was paid on such transaction. The Assessee's share was of 60%. The conveyance deed was executed

KALPTARU INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-3 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

price was below the stamp duty valuation. It was held that the AO had been directed by the earlier 263 order to specifically address this issue, but had failed to take the appropriate action by not waiting for the DVO report and simply accepting the returned income. In these facts, PCIT held that the AO should have provisionally adopted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI VALLABHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL, BHAVNAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal On

price of sale deed executed in 2006 and such amount is paid by original owners. These facts clearly prove that Title of the land was not clear which is accepted by original owners of the land. On perusal of 7/12 and 8 extracts as submitted before AO and appellate proceedings, that land was never transferred in the name of appellant

JIVABHAI MADHABHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

price of the land while calculating the Long Term Capital Gain and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming such action of AO, such cost of acquisition and indexation thereof is requested to be granted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an individual, did not file any return of income for the year under

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 7.2 It is found that the assessee had disclosed all the material facts and explanation

SHRI NEERAV SHAILESH PAREKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

2. There are several methods to evaluate the fair price of unlisted equity shares and irrespective of the method adopted to ascertain the value of unlisted equity shares, it is apparent that the method would yield a single amount i.e. a single price for every share of the company. In case of different classes of shares (which differ

SHRI DILIP DEVJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRLCE-1(2) NOW THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

transfer of “assets other than capital asset” is introduced by Section 43CA of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Hence, the Assessing Officer in order to justify the reopening of the case has taken erroneous contention that income arising from the subject land is taxable as “income from business”. The Ld. AR submitted that from the return of income filed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

price of this block was at Rs.5,13,883/-. The assessee has purchased this block along other family members, and was having 1/6th share. The AO has made addition of Rs.5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment in block no.77. Similarly, the assessee has made addition of Rs.4,48,378/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account

RINKI SHASHIKANT GANDHI,VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

Section 50C without issuing proper notice or providing an opportunity for the appellant to submit a valuation report. Ground 4 Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that sale consideration was not paid in 2005. Ld. CIT (A) ignored the sale deed dtd. 09/02/2005 wherein page 9 & 10 clearly mention payment cheque number and amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- paid